Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states 'Create' (implying a mutation) but gives no behavioral details: no mention of permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate triggers, or what the response contains. The API endpoint hint is minimal context, not sufficient behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the core action. However, the platform tag and API endpoint are extraneous details that don't aid the agent in tool selection. It avoids verbosity but under-specifies purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a 'trigger' is, what it does, or what the result looks like. Sibling tools suggest this is part of a webhooks system, but the description doesn't connect to that context, leaving the agent with insufficient information.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'hook_id' documented as 'Webhooks Hook ID'. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond this, but since the schema fully covers the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—no extra value, but no gap either.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Create Webhooks Trigger' is a tautology that restates the tool name, adding no clarity. It includes a platform tag and API endpoint, but does not specify what the tool actually does (e.g., what a 'trigger' is, what event it listens for, or what action it performs). Compared to sibling tools like 'create_company_webhooks_triggers_v2_0' or 'create_project_webhooks_triggers_v2_0', it lacks differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing webhook), context (company vs. project scope), or related tools (like create_webhooks_hook). Without this, an agent cannot make an informed decision.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.